Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Further Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Case No.:1:20-cv-01104H- ES Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANGE SAMMA et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Civil Action No. [ J
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MARGARET D. STOCK
I, Margaret D. Stock, declare as follows:
1. I am a member of the Alaska Bar and the managing attorney of the law firm Cascadia
Cross Border Law Group in Anchorage, Alaska. I am also a retired Lieutenant Colonel in
the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve. I previously taught at the United States
Military Academy, West Point, New York, for nine years, and I have also taught on a
part-time basis in the Political Science Department at the University of Alaska
Anchorage. I have been admitted to the practice of law since 1993 .
2. As an attorney and a graduate of the Harvard Law School, I have practiced in the area of
immigration and citizenship law for more than twenty-five years. I have represented
hundreds of businesses, immigrants, and citizens seeking to navigate the difficult maze of
the U.S. immigration system, and I volunteer regularly to handle "pro bono" cases with
the American Immigration Lawyers Association Military Assistance Program (AILA
MAP). In 2009, I concluded work as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 13
Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, which was headed by Jeb Bush and
Thomas F. "Mac" Mclarty Ill. Prior to my transfer to the Retired Reserve in June 2010,
I worked for several years on immigration and citizenship issues relating to military
service while on temporary detail to the U.S. Army Accessions Command, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the United States Special
Operations Command. I am also a recipient of a 2013 Fellowship from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for my work relating to immigration law and
national security. Finally, I am the author of the book "Immigration Law and the
Military," now in its second edition.
3. Over the course of my career, I have regularly encountered members of the military who
are facing possible deportation or removal from the United States due to alleged
immigration law violations. Often these individuals face deportation or removal because
the three different immigration agencies (Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE"), Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services ("USCIS")) have different policies with regard to their treatment of military
personnel who are alleged to have violated immigration laws. For example, ICE often
encounters military members when doing interior enforcement. ICE has in the past had
policies that disfavor placing military members into removal proceedings. Unfortunately,
however, these policies seem to change with the attitude of the top political officials at
ICE and are therefore unpredictable.
4. CBP typically encounters military members at the airport or at a land port-of-entry, and
sometimes refuses admission to military members whose immigration papers appear not
to be in order, or places them into removal proceedings at the border. For example, Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 13
I once represented a military member who was placed into removal proceedings at the
San Francisco airport because he flew into the United States from Japan, was not on
military orders, and was in possession of a green card that CBP determined had been
"abandoned." He was able to retain counsel and I was able to get his naturalization
approved, whereupon the immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings. While
generally CBP agents are supposed to follow the statutory directive of 8 USC § 1354,
which exempts non-citizen service members from passport and visa requirements when
entering or leaving the United States, some CBP agents have been trained with regard to
this statute, and some have not. Others read the statute very narrowly and do not apply
its provisions where the military member is not traveling on military orders.
5. USCIS is the most problematic immigration agency from the perspective of military
members. USCIS does not have any official policy that requires the agency to review a
person's military service before placing the person into removal proceedings;
accordingly, many of the cases that I have encountered involve referrals to removal
proceedings by USCIS officers. It is very common lately, for example, for USCIS
Asylum Officers to refer current service members to removal proceedings if the USCIS
Asylum Officer decides that the service member did not timely file an asylum
application, or for a USCIS Field Office to refer a military member with a conditional
green card to removal proceedings because USCIS has not approved the military
member's pending I-751 Petition to lift the conditions on the service member's lawful
permanent residence.
6. I have represented numerous service members in deportation and removal proceedings
over the course of my career. For example, early in my career as an attorney I represented Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 13
an Alaska National Guard member who was facing deportation by the old Immigration &
Naturalization Service ("INS") because he had paid an Anchorage municipal fine for
having driven onto a school parking lot in Anchorage with a lawfully owned firearm. 1 At
various points in my career I have represented military members who were in removal
proceedings but whose removal proceedings were terminated after they naturalized. 2 The
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security take the official position
that they are permitted to enforce immigration laws against currently serving members of
the United States Armed Forces and they do not "drop charges" because someone is
currently serving in the military. Typically, a military member facing removal is required
to defend against the charges, which usually requires the person to retain private counsel,
often at great expense to the service member.
7. Based on my knowledge and prior experience representing immigrant service members,
Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and 2 are at risk of being placed in removal proceedings and
deported, notwithstanding their ongoing military service.
8. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 enlisted in the United States Army through the Military Accessions
Vital to the National Interest ("MAVNI") program. She was eligible to enlist in the
MAVNI program as a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA")
program. However, her DACA status has expired, and she currently does not have lawful
immigration status. Due to the Department of Defense policy she is challenging in this
lawsuit, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 has not obtained a certification of honorable service and is
therefore unable to apply for expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440.
1 All firearms offenses are deportable/removable offenses under U.S. immigration laws, no matter how minor. 2 Unlike civilians, military members and veterans are by law allowed to naturalize while in removal proceedings. Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 6 of 13
9. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is at risk of being placed into removal proceedings if any of the
immigration agencies notice that she lacks a valid immigration status. The current
administration has incentivized its immigration agencies to place individuals into removal
proceedings if they are out of status and are encountered by immigration agents.
10. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 enlisted in the United States Army as a conditional permanent
resident. After enlistment, she applied to remove the conditions on her permanent
residency and obtain a "permanent" Green Card. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2's interview with
USCIS to remove the conditions on her permanent residency was scheduled shortly
before her ship-out date to basic combat training. In reliance on advice she received from
her military recruiter and in expectation of naturalizing through the military, she chose
not to attend the interview. Due to the Department of Defense policy she is challenging in
this lawsuit, Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 has not obtained a certification of honorable service and
is unable to apply for expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440.
11. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 is very much at risk of having her conditional lawful permanent
residence terminated and being referred for removal proceedings to the Department of
Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR"). USCIS has a policy of
terminating the lawful permanent residence status of immigrants who do not timely file
an 1-751 or who are deemed to have "abandoned" their 1-751 petition by failing to show
up for a scheduled interview. USCIS does not take into account a person's active duty
military service when terminating the person's conditional lawful permanent residence
status. An example of a very similar case can be found in the record of the May 20, 2008
hearing of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, at which a Navy sailor named Karla Rivera testified. I Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 7 of 13
was involved in assisting Ms. Rivera, who found herself in removal proceedings after
USCIS terminated her conditional lawful permanent resident status when she failedto
timely file an I-751 form.3
12. If the names or other personally-identifying information about PlaintiffsJane Doe 1 and 2
are released, they are at risk of being placed in removal proceedings and deported. To
protect against these harms, they should be allowed to proceed under pseudonyms.
13. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Statement of Karla Arambula De
Rivera presented at Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and Women: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and Int'l
Law 110 Cong. 52 (2008) and available at https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/wp
content/uploads/2008/05/Rivera080520.pdf.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April U, 2020.
Margaret D. Stock
3See Exhibit 1. Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 8 of 13
Exhibit A to Declaration of Margaret Stock to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms & to Seal Personally Identifying Information
Case No.:______Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 9 of 13
STATEMENT OF
AIRMAN KARLA ARAMBULA DE RIVERA, U.S. NAVY
Before the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
20 MAY 2008
Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 10 of 13
Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary
STATEMENT OF
AIRMAN KARLA ARAMBULA DE RIVERA, U.S. NAVY
Before the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
20 MAY 2008
Not for publication until Released by the House Committee on the Judiciary
1 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 11 of 13
Chairwoman Lofgren and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
provide you an overview of my experience as an immigrant to the United States.
My name is Karla Arambula de Rivera. I am a native of Mexico. I was brought to live in the United States as a little girl and have lived here ever since. I
married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and became a conditional permanent resident that was set to expire in two years. In March of 2007, I enlisted in the Navy. In July of 2007, I was supposed to apply to adjust my status to that of a lawful permanent resident, removing the conditions. While in A school in Pensacola,
Florida, I went to Navy Legal Service Office Central where they helped me to file the I-751, to adjust my status based on my marriage to a citizen. This form was returned due to a post-dated check. I returned to Navy Legal Service Office
Central where I was advised I could file instead an N-400 to become a naturalized citizen based on my military status. Navy Legal Service Office
Central filed the N-400. I then reported to the USS CARL VINSON in August
2007. The VINSON checked on my immigration package to find out that the
Nebraska Service Center had no record of me filing the N-400. The VINSON helped me file a new N-400 in December 2007. In January 2008, I was sent a
Notice to Appear in Immigration Court in Los Angeles, California, due to the fact that my status was terminated because I failed to file the petition to remove the conditions (based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen). My hearing date was on
February 28, 2009. I went to my new local legal assistance office, Navy Legal
Service Office Mid Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia. With their help, I filed a Motion
2 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 12 of 13
to Change Venue to Arlington, Virginia, but the court would not rule on that
motion until the day of the hearing, which required me to travel to California. At
the hearing I was fortunate to be represented by pro bono counsel who had
helped me file my original paperwork for residency. The counsel asked the
judge to terminate the proceeding based on the Forman Memo put out by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement which states that ICE should not initiate
removal proceedings against military members who are eligible for
naturalization under sections 328 or 329 of the INA. Despite the fact that I had
an N-400 application pending based on my military service, ICE objected to the termination and the judge would only grant the motion written by Navy Legal
Service Office Mid Atlantic to change venue to Arlington. I have a new hearing date set for July 1, 2008 in Arlington. Navy Legal Service Office Mid Atlantic helped me find an organization that would provide an attorney for free and got me started toward citizenship. I have an interview with the Norfolk Field Office for my naturalization scheduled for May 27, 2008. Hopefully, by the time my hearing in Arlington comes, I will be a citizen and this nightmare will be behind me. This situation has been extremely difficult for me both professionally and personally. As an enlisted member of the Navy, stationed on board the USS
CARL VINSON, a carrier, that frequently deploys, I am worried about letting my shipmates down and working out of my rate if left behind during deployment, which would have an effect on my military career. I know the ship will ensure that I make the hearing, but it is difficult for them and for me. I have also had to
3 Case 1:20-cv-01104-ESH Document 36-2 Filed 07/23/20 Page 13 of 13
spend my own time and money traveling to Los Angeles for the removal hearing. I am grateful that I have had the assistance of Navy legal and opportunities to find pro bono legal services to help with this complex issue. If it hadn’t been for their help, I would not have been able to afford legal counsel on my own.
Thank you for your continued support.
4